People are free to believe in his guilt, independent of the verdict.
I agree with you on that point. People are free to believe in his guilt or innocence. He may very well have been guilty . But it wasn’t proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was. So he should be treated as if he’s not guilty. While the case against him is strong it also has gaps like the tight timeline and lack of injuries that are inconsistent with him being the sole killer. I know it’s an unpopular take on this board but it’s JMO.
Yeah there are gaps. Namely the tight timeline his odd composure and lack of injuries. I think he was there but may have arrived after the fact: This is JMO. I know it’s an unpopular take but dissenting opinions should be allowed on this board. The prosecutions case had real holes. The police never looked at anyone else because they had tunnel vision. JMO.
Remember what OJ said after he was acquitted? He said he was going to go out and search for the “real” killer. But he spent all his time on the golf course
I agree with you on everything you said but I should point out he didn’t actually write the book it was mainly ghostwritten and was made for financial reasons. Of course that doesn’t mean the book isn’t morally reprehensible.Remember what OJ said after he was acquitted? He said he was going to go out and search for the “real” killer. But he spent all his time on the golf course
Also, the book he wrote “If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer.” He "hypothetically" discussed the murders. which many people viewed as an indirect confession.
JMO of course.
It was really the photos of him wearing the bruno magli shoes and lying about it that resulted in him being found liable in the civil trial. But then again that only shows he was there not that he was the killer. He could have arrived at the crime scene after the murders. But ill read the book though.
www.nbcnews.com
Well the same could be said if he was the killer why would he kill Nicole and leave her body out there for her children to find knowing that would scar them for life. That argument goes both ways whether he is innocent or guilty. I’m not sure either way whether he was guilty or innocent. The evidence against him only points to him being at the crime scene not him being the killer. But he was found not guilty and we shouldn’t be assuming his guilt. I know this is an unpopular take on this board but dissenting opinions should be allowed. Happy Thanksgiving Day
I thought it was excessive sentence though since he was got a lengthy sentence of 9 years essentially for stealing his own stuff whereas anyone else would have gotten a year or two at most. The sentence should have been based on the facts of the case not based on vengeance for him being found not guilty. JMO.
I think these are different scenarios and not the same.
Well we can respectfully disagree. I don’t think the sentence he got was appropriate for the robbery case since it was essentially revenge for him being found not guilty in the murder case. The robbery case was unrelated so the sentence should reflect that not him being found not guilty of the murders. Anyone else being convicted of that crime would have gotten a year or two at most not 9 years like he got.
I can’t see him just leaving his ex wife’s nearly decapitated dead body there for his kids to find in the morning either way. But if he arrived after the fact and stumbled into the scene he might have just focused on leaving the crime scene quickly. I thinks it’s hard to explain whether he was the killer or arrived after the fact. The evidence only points to him being there at some point not that he killed them. JMO
